Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Spinal wrote:

Good grief. It states her burrito was "heavier and greasier" than normal. New low.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a37457448/report-on-shelby-houlihan-doping-case/

Exactly, we all know how much a burrito should weigh and how greasy it should be, right?

Did she bring a scale with her to the truck?

I'm getting old here people wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

It is inconceivable that an athlete on whereabouts would go near a drug so highly detectable, perhaps months with granddaughter metabolites.

It’s perfectly conceivable:

1) perhaps her designer ‘roofs were contaminated. ..

2) Or perhaps she’s really dim and didn’t think she could be caught out.

Scenario 2 certainly concurs with the belief that (a) the burrito defence would be accepted and (b) thinking others will pay for her failed defence.

But whatever - she’s appealed, lost and is banned. Nevertheless, I do hope that one day owns up and tells the truth. I’m sure she would find great relief in doing so.

Ok I will ease back from inconceivable and say very highly unlikely.

Unknown ions from designer drugs would have been investigated and within her training group.

Does no appear that dim.

Read and learn stuff prior to posting.

She has has not lost an appeal.

casual obsever wrote:

Plus, in any case, WADA was not a party here: the "Claimant" was World Athletics, and the "Respondent" was Houliham.

See I.1.-3. in the CAS report.

I fully know that.

The Wada standards and methods were central to the prosecution.

casual obsever wrote:

astro wrote:

Not sure what you are asking exactly, but yes, the lab's protocols and procedures should be transparent and opened to judicial challenge.

Which they are. See the CAS report.

And, it is of course common practice to have experts explain their data, and put them into context.

And, Ayotte does not receive her salary from WADA, neither functionally (whatever that means) or otherwise. She is an INRS employee.

I said functionally paid; do pay attention.This means that her salary is dependent on Wada funding as her colleagues . Conflict of interest.

Read the Wada code IST’s are deemed fact.

If you read what was said Ayotte was allowed to go beyond stating facts.

astro wrote:

Not sure what you are asking exactly, but yes, the lab's protocols and procedures should be transparent and opened to judicial challenge. Years ago the UCI eviscerated the WADA lab regarding Armstrong. He was guilty of course, but not based on anything that lab found or did. It's findings were completely compromised.

Anyway athletes need to be smarter. Pro teams hopefully have regular testing for their own athletes. Sure this can be used to help doping and avoid detection, but it is a logical safeguard. Also I would never give a sample without keeping my own.

Do read stuff; a huge ban etc for testing other than Wada labs; that would get out quick; see GB cycling.

liar soorer wrote:She has has not lost an appeal.

LOL, what?

Read II. Factual Background - she actually filed, and lost and withdrew, a number of appeals.

astro wrote:

Not sure what you are asking exactly, but yes, the lab's protocols and procedures should be transparent and opened to judicial challenge. Years ago the UCI eviscerated the WADA lab regarding Armstrong. He was guilty of course, but not based on anything that lab found or did. It's findings were completely compromised.

Anyway athletes need to be smarter. Pro teams hopefully have regular testing for their own athletes. Sure this can be used to help doping and avoid detection, but it is a logical safeguard. Also I would never give a sample without keeping my own.

Not allowed to have or keep you own sample.

I would do it anyway.

It would not be in any of their containers.Seems a very sensible thing to do but never heard of it being tried.

Anyway; they would deny validity and say that they only recognise results from a WADA LAB.

casual obsever wrote:

liar soorer wrote:She has has not lost an appeal.

LOL, what?

Read II. Factual Background - she actually filed, and lost and withdrew, a number of appeals.

Name one!

liar soorer wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Plus, in any case, WADA was not a party here: the "Claimant" was World Athletics, and the "Respondent" was Houliham.

See I.1.-3. in the CAS report.

I fully know that.

The Wada standards and methods were central to the prosecution.

What was central was the presence of a banned drug in her system for which she could not produce an acceptable excuse.

liar soorer wrote:

It would not be in any of their containers.Seems a very sensible thing to do but never heard of it being tried.

Anyway; they would deny validity and say that they only recognise results from a WADA LAB.

Houlihan did not question the validity of the WADA test results.

liar soorer wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

LOL, what?

Read II. Factual Background - she actually filed, and lost and withdrew, a number of appeals.

Name one!

She has not lost an appeal? Your illiteracy on these issues is off the charts.

"Distance runner is banned for four years after the The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismiss her appeal over positive test."

They must have removed the quote

astro wrote:

Whatever you think of her guilt or innocence, she has the right to contest the results legally. I think she doped, but also that she is morally innocent given the pathetic state of the sport where runners on rocket fuel, the most obvious sports frauds we will ever see, are celebrated and allowed to cheat with impunity.

2 wrongs never make a right that's the excuse of everyone behind bars. She's a liar and the scum that has ruined our sport

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

It would not be in any of their containers.Seems a very sensible thing to do but never heard of it being tried.

Anyway; they would deny validity and say that they only recognise results from a WADA LAB.

Houlihan did not question the validity of the WADA test results.

It appears she was flanked by idiots!

Yusef Scumm. wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Houlihan did not question the validity of the WADA test results.

It appears she was flanked by idiots!

What on earth has that to do with my point about having your own sample?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Name one!

She has not lost an appeal? Your illiteracy on these issues is off the charts.

https://athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/shelby-houlihan-loses-appeal-against-her-four-year-drugs-ban-1039949217/

"Distance runner is banned for four years after the The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismiss her appeal over positive test."

Go away.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I fully know that.

The Wada standards and methods were central to the prosecution.

What was central was the presence of a banned drug in her system for which she could not produce an acceptable excuse.

Go away